A dogmatic allegiance to anonymity is threatening privacy, according to Art Coviello, executive chairman of RSA.
Coviello cast anonymity as the "enemy of privacy" because it gives "free reign to our networks to adversaries" with "no risk of discovery or prosecution."
The head of EMC's security division told delegates at the RSA …

Re: From the official NSA handbaook

"Customers are caught in a Catch-22. They're afraid to deploy technology for fear of violating workers' privacy" even though security intelligence tools are ultimately the best way to protect personal information, Coviello argued.

*****

Read as: "we've just spent a fortune developing a big data analysis tools but since the NSA leaks none of our customers want to be seen as collecting private information".

Sounds illogical to me

But hey, not an expert.

I would like to note, though, that even though people might claim a historical right to privacy, it is much harder to claim a historical right to anonymity. Before the internet, anonymity was strictly the domain of ROMANES EUNT DOMUS graffitis, anonymous letters, and possibly certain private clubs for the connoisseurs.

I'm old enough to remember the articles in the early noughties commenting how all this "newsgroup trolling" and general uncivility on the Web were due to this strange and novel anonymity enjoyed by Internet users.

Executive chairman bites himself in the arse

> with "no risk of discovery."

Errm. That sounds to me like a very good definition of privacy, but has nothing to do with anonymity. You don't need to know someone's identity to catch them if they're performing a criminal act - just ask any policeman.

As for giving free reign to "our networks"? Well, no. You can still have security at the point of entry to the network - or even at sensitive nodes within it. However the privacy element still holds: that if someone wants to say or do something once they have been validated and allowed access, their right to do or say that privately can be upheld.

The problem is that the NRSA don't have the skills or ability to properly determine who are the righteous folk who should be allowed in and who should not. That's their failing to keep security up to speed with network development.

Of course, that doesn't mean people should be allowed anonymous access to sensitive, secret or vital infrastructure. But only a damn fool would permit those anywhere near a public network.

anonymity as the "enemy of privacy" because it gives "free reign to our networks to adversaries" with "no risk of discovery or prosecution."

“When we understand the context of people’s ‘normal’ behaviour or how information flows... we can more clearly and quickly spot even a faint signal of any impending attack or intrusion...This is what makes intelligence-driven security future-proof. It eliminates the need for prior knowledge of the attacker or their methods.”

What's that movie where they can prevent crimes BEFORE it happens called again? If these security facist have their way nobody is allowed to wear clothes for fear of what might be strapped underneath. The problem with the NSA and GCHQ with the use of private individual information IS the fact that they're being built on the assumption that everyone is/will be guilty of a crime at some point in time in the future.

If they were responsible and trustworthy, this isn't so bad, but that's the problem, they're humans too. So they're by their very nature, not trustworthy. Fears of these information being used for citizen blackmail is very valid and has precedence that predates the internet. We couldn't have fought so hard for a free and democractic society only to be enslaved by our own governments and the people in "power" once again.

Just what i was thinking

The movie you are thinking of is i think, "Minority Report" ....

“When we understand the context of people’s ‘normal’ behaviour or how information flows on our networks, we can more clearly and quickly spot even a faint signal of any impending attack or intrusion, ” Coviello explained, “This is what makes intelligence-driven security future-proof. It eliminates the need for prior knowledge of the attacker or their methods.”

This is all a little scary to me - if there is a 98% probability of your behaviour predisposing that you will cause "a crime" - then does this mean that 2% of those stopped / incarcerated / thrown into Abu Graib / cautioned / renditioned (delete as applicable) would have been innocent - "a faint signal of any impending attack" - might be a load of bollox!

Minority Report

Sorry, what?!

See if I've got this right: He's basically saying that "You can have privacy, but only if we know who you are and can prove it?" Screw that. If I want privacy, I do NOT want someone watching me and knowing who I am as I do whatever it is that I do. I think the man's been drinking too much java.

Attacks and intrusions will never be prevented by eliminating privacy/anonymity. Most network attacks are launched from distributed networks of infected systems. So the identity of the attack source is easily spoofed. And when the brains siting at the command and control systems are eventually found, odds are they will be resident in a country that refuses to take action against them.

This just sounds like the complaints of a Big Data vendor who has had a couple of major customers have second thoughts.

The real Big Brothers here are the commercial interests that will be harmed if corporations and even the NSA no longer buy their data warehouse solutions.

Privacy can be improved if your 'customers' stop grabbing on to every bit of data they can nab from their user base and hold onto it forever. I don't see how knowing who usernames are in real life can help the users protect their privacy.

What's needed to protect users' privacy is TOR built in at the OS level

So basically we should have MODERATE privacy...

...so law enforcement, secret services, laywers, ISP:s, copyright organizations, employers, prospective employers -- in short everyone + dog EXCEPT private citizens -- can track and monitor us on the net, instead of the excessive privacy we have today when we may say things which might upset our governments, RIAA or Paris Hilton without anyone knowing it was us who said it.

And the irony of it is that this "excessive" privacy is already mostly an illusion, at least in Europe, where in most countries ISP:s are required to keep records of what you do on the, for law enforcement to peruse at their convenience.

There it is...

Someone finally said it. Our "security" is only necessary with the elimination of personal privacy.

Obama and the US Gov will continue to issue soothing statements like "we are currently reviewing" and "we are examining how to protect peoples privacy" until the furor dies down and they carry on as usual.

It's the same things they said about the PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo. They're still around.

Re: An form of words worthy of a politician

"What will the European Union mutate into after a few more decades, or less time than that?"

If the USA's government and intelligence community get their deserved punishment for their attitudes on privacy, government transparency, human rights and respecting their own laws, there's a good chance that the EU will think twice before putting itself in that kind of situation.

While this would delay the coming of the Panopticon dystopia, it's not a true solution, just a temporary palliative. The solution would be having a vigilant, well informed and well educated public.

Where's John McAfee when you need him?

Wow...

Wow, this talks me into not buying products from RSA. I mean, with this view, it seems almost guaranteed they would put backdoors into it. The fact of the matter is, there ARE security researchers that disrupt meeting places for illicit activities, botnets, and so on. They can't physically arrest them unless they screw up due to anonymity, this is true. But the realistic fact is the agencies that the RSA head honcho expects people to not worry about and give up their privacy to, are running amok with no checks and balances whatsoever.